|
I did research on how 4 drones per gas compares to 3 drones per gas by comparing mining of every one of BGH's 26 gases simultaneously to get a good average. I used normal game speed, over 15 minutes. The results: 4 drones on a gas yields 111.4984% increase compared to 3 drones on gas.
IMO terrans and protoss should definitely "overclock" gas to afford more temps/vessals/tanks in mid game, once minerals become over-saturated. And minerals almost ALWAYS become oversaturated; I've also done research on terminal drone-saturation on minerals, and around over 160% saturation you get diminishing returns... (I was trying to find at what number does adding a new drone to mine becomes unworthy of the price, but it's very time consuming so I haven't finished researching it yet.)
|
Can you test four drones on gas when the geyser is to the left or above? Those are supposed to be the perfect spots for geyser where they get the most optimal mining. It would be interesting if it is still 111% at those spots.
|
If you're going to put all this time into testing these things, it'd probably be good to post the actual data as well as detailed test methodology. Otherwise it all just goes to waste because it's not a lot better than anecdotal evidence to everyone but you.
I say this also because your final conclusions are stated in a way that doesn't make sense: "111.4984% increase" implies that the gas yield is *twice as much* with 4 drones vs 3 drones, which is clearly not the case. The typical way to measure the % increase would be:
(ValueExperiment - ValueControl) / ValueControl
e.g. if 4 drones collected 5000 gas and 3 drones collected 4000, it would be: (5000 - 4000) / 4000 => a 25% increase, not a 125% increase.
This data is also probably only useful if you talk about the raw value difference, rather than just percentages. While an increase of e.g. 20 gas per minute *would* be an increase, and might even be a 10% increase, it does not immediately follow that it's definitely worth doing. Workers cost supply and build time, and you have to consider the trade-offs of devoting that supply and time to extracting that resource, thus it is useful to know exactly how *many* extra units you'll be able to squeeze out in that time period.
|
Shouldnt you be testing this per site / per gas and not the whole map?
Some gas positions are ok with 3 workers. I can list those if you want.. brb:
If you are really really picky you need 4 on left position top gas and 4 on botleft position top gas, its not a big of a deal though as it happens rarely.
This was tested with Terran btw. I know for a fact Zerg has better pathing than Terran, especially on topleft pos.
|
4 workers on gas is nothing new on maps with bad gas positioning
Of course modern maps don't have bad gas positioning
|
This is such old news… Thorough and systematic, and mostly correct and complete (except for the influence of terrain, buildings and pathfinding regions on worker pathfinding) has been done all the way back in 2005. No need to try and reinvent the wheel here, unless you want to really go deep (like into the game code level deep). Realistically, the gas income deficit, depending on pathfinding regions, gas position relative to the resource depot, the type of resource depot and gas colleting structure (read: race) and surrounding terrain and units, is between 1% (negelgible) and over 30% (>100 g gmin⁻¹). The 11% increase on 4 workers (I am just assuming that that is what you mean) seems like an expectable average.
On September 05 2021 16:30 Puosu wrote: 4 workers on gas is nothing new on maps with bad gas positioning
Of course modern maps don't have bad gas positioning Since mining rate is only one consideration and other factors need to be taken into account, such as the Geyser's getting in the way of unit pathing or being exposed to harassment, optimal mining positions are not feasible on all positions outside the mains (even in the mains gas placement is not without its problems) for most map layouts. A realistic goal is to avoid the worst positions and keep deficits under 10% (~30 g gmin⁻¹).
|
On September 05 2021 16:26 MeSaber wrote:Shouldnt you be testing this per site / per gas and not the whole map? Some gas positions are ok with 3 workers. I can list those if you want.. brb: If you are really really picky you need 4 on left position top gas and 4 on botleft position top gas, its not a big of a deal though as it happens rarely. This was tested with Terran btw. I know for a fact Zerg has better pathing than Terran, especially on topleft pos.
This is a skewed representation because there are 1000 different versions of hunters/bgh and for the most part the pathing is different in each one.
|
No i always play regular BGH and most do. They rarely change mineral/gas position on other maps anyway.
On The Hunters however they keep changing everything.
BGHmmr is also regular BGH.
|
I remember from years ago that generally a 4th drone gives 0-12% extra gas which varies on the maps, so I have no idea how or where you got a massive 111% increase from. Unless you meant 11%, in which case since you can't do basic maths that 12 year olds can do, why should anybody trust you?
Also that unneccessary amount of decimal dots, especially when you haven't even posted the raw data itself. Data cannot be trusted if it can't be verified.
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36683 Posts
I'm going to close this thread because the responses aren't really respectful.
@OP, please provide actual data and evidence next time. Your word alone isn't good enough in situations like these.
|
|
|
|